Skip to content

Adding support for extending objects with methods that contain simple self-calls #540

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

#

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
lkuper opened this issue Jun 21, 2011 · 0 comments
Closed

Adding support for extending objects with methods that contain simple self-calls #540

lkuper opened this issue Jun 21, 2011 · 0 comments

Comments

@lkuper
Copy link
Contributor

lkuper commented Jun 21, 2011

By "simple self-calls", we mean that no method overloading is involved. I think the place this is currently failing is in typechecking, although I need to make sure. Currently xfail'd test: src/test/run-pass/anon-obj-with-self-call.rs.
@ghost ghost assigned lkuper Jun 21, 2011
lkuper added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 21, 2011
@lkuper
Some progress on support for extending objects with new fields (issue
84005fa 
into four separate issues (#538, #539, #540, #543) with corresponding
tests.
lkuper added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 6, 2011
@lkuper
Forwarding functions. Lots of progress toward #539, #540, #543.
4c31566
lkuper added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 19, 2011
@lkuper
Reduced test case for issue #540.
a33bc56
lkuper added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 19, 2011
@lkuper
Some progress on issue #540.
18162d3
@lkuper lkuper closed this as completed in 2eb4762 Jul 20, 2011
@lkuper lkuper removed their assignment Jun 16, 2014
keeperofdakeys pushed a commit to keeperofdakeys/rust that referenced this issue Dec 12, 2017
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#546 - alexander255:master, r=alexcrichton
863fb88 
Add support for the `accept4` system call for FreeBSD* & NetBSD*

As outlined in rust-lang#540.

However since support for this system call seems to be committed, but not yet released in NetBSD & BitRig (is BitRig actually still be developed at all, btw?), I'm not sure whether it wouldn't be a better idea to only add OpenBSD support instead?
What's the official policy on this?
flip1995 pushed a commit to flip1995/rust that referenced this issue Nov 23, 2021
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#7937 - flip1995:rustfmt-skip-artefact, r=Mani…
445c83f 
…shearth

Remove rustfmt::skip attribute from register_plugins function

r? `@Manishearth` since you added this in rust-lang#540 😄

changelog: none
celinval added a commit to celinval/rust-dev that referenced this issue Jun 4, 2024
@celinval @tedinski
Merge rustc into rmc - 2021 week 39 (rust-lang#502)
4643e33 
Conflicts:
    compiler/rustc_driver/src/lib.rs
    src/llvm-project (sub-module)
    src/tools/cargo (sub-module)
    src/tools/rust-analyzer (sub-module)

Updates required:
    modified:   compiler/rustc_codegen_rmc/src/compiler_interface.rs
    modified:   compiler/rustc_codegen_rmc/src/context/goto_ctx.rs
    modified:   compiler/rustc_codegen_rmc/src/overrides/stubs/rust_stubber.rs
    modified:   compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/collector.rs
    modified:   src/test/rmc/Enum/result3.rs

Note:

We added a loop unwind option to rmc/Enum/result3.rs test. The merge
uncovered an issue, filed here: rust-lang#540.
celinval added a commit to celinval/rust-dev that referenced this issue Jun 4, 2024
@celinval @tedinski
Fix unreachable code handling (rust-lang#540).
74d8048 
Our codegen for unreachable statements were incorrect. CBMC doesn't
treat assert(0) as a terminal instruction. This was causing CBMC to get
stuck in a false loop.

Instead, we should generate an assertion followed by an assumption to
guarantee that CBMC would end there.
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@lkuper